logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.07.21 2019노158
업무방해
Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The court below found the defendant not guilty on this part of the charges of this case, inasmuch as it found the defendant guilty of obstruction of business due to the filing of a civil petition against H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) at the time of the original judgment, since each interference with business due to the receipt of civil petitions against the Seoul Geumcheon-gu Public Health Center, Seoul, and thus does not constitute a crime, the court below found the defendant not guilty on this part of the charges of this case.

As to this, only the defendant appealed. In such a case, although the guilty part of the judgment of the court below is judged in the trial together with the guilty part based on the principle of no appeal, the defendant is in fact free from the object of attack and defense between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Thus, the decision of the court below is followed and the decision is not again made in the trial.

In the end, the scope of the court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the defendant.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant case constitutes a case where the other party to the exercise of force is a third party, not the victim. Thus, in order to establish the crime of interference with business against the victim by filing a civil petition against H, a third party, the victim’s free will is directly likely to be voltaged, and special circumstances should be acknowledged that the victim’s free will is practically identical to the exercise of power against the victim.

However, in the instant case, the crime of interference with business is not recognized as the element of the crime of interference with business, “the occurrence of danger of interference with business,” and “the intent to interfere with business,” and further, such an act may not be the same as the exercise of the victim’s power.

arrow